approach climb 2.1% vs MACG 2.5% or greater

[wof]

Originally Posted by john_tullamarine

I would really need to look at the same paperwork as you have to make sure I have my head around it properly.

However, might it just be the case that Boeing is referring to the WAT limits ? The WAT limits are permanent line-in-the-sand stuff. The obstacle gradient requirements will be either the Part 121 things or whatever is specific to a particular runway, ie highly variable.

Hey John, maybe a simplified example shows what I’m trying to reconcile.

Here’s a photo from an EFB landing performance calculation I recently ran:





So for example, if the aircraft landing weight is 235,000 kg (above MLW which is 192,776 kgs), we would still be below the approach climb limited weight (238,181 kgs). Note: even if the aircraft were above that weight, Boeing guidance still allows the approach to continue using a lower flap configuration (i.e., Flaps 20 for landing and Flaps 5 for go-around, instead of Flaps 25 / Flaps 20).

However, my question relates to the following situation:

At that same weight (235,000 kgs) the aircraft would be above the go-around limited weight (230,031 kg) based on the required MACG.

So in that case the aircraft would satisfy Boeing’s climb limits but still not meet the procedure’s required missed-approach gradient.

That’s the part I’m trying to reconcile. In this scenario, since the aircraft weight does not satisfy the required MACG for that runway, we would not be permitted to continue the approach. Is that correct?